Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 69

Thread: Swans pushing for 3 Grand Finals

  1. #37
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,750
    Quote Originally Posted by Boddo View Post
    The academy disadvantage does apply to WA/SA. I identified this on here a long time ago before this came about. A submission has already been sent to the AFL.

    https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...20-p4zmq3.html

    If Franklin grew up in Collingwoods zoned area he’d be tied to Collingwood whether that be their country or metro zone.

    But if say he grew up in Bunbury, Fremantle would have no rights to him. Even though Bunbury is basically the same size as Launceston. The place North have rights to indigenous players like Tarryn Thomas.

    Non Victorian clubs just want an even playing field n not these backroom mates clubs sweat heart deals that Vic clubs are used to.

    The days of these shonky Victorian deals are going to die a slow death. The writing is on the wall.
    Sadly the NGA's have much of the shonky deals feel about them - its zoning by stealth. At least it is limited to certain players so can't be a complete reintroduction of zoning by stealth, but there are already multiple examples of where players with already very well established pathways to AFL footy are being hoovered up by clubs under the NGA, claimed as their own - even where the clubs have had to do practically nothing to develop the talent.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    Statistically its actually much easier for a Victorian team to finish top 4 than a non-victorian.

    A non-victorian has (roughly) 11 games of distinct home ground advantage, and 11 games of distinct away ground disadvantge. Their win/loss distribution graph is centred around 11 wins, but quite narrow at the sides. (ie the distribution is narrow).

    A vic side has (roughly) 18 games of neutral ground advantage, 2 games of distinct away disadvantage, and 2 games of distinct home advantage. The win/loss distribution graph is centred around 11 wins also, but much wider variance because of the high number of 50/50 games.

    What this means is that West Coast, Adelaide and Sydney of the last 3 years were super teams to defy this probability, and if all hosted grand finals at a neutral venue they would win in a canter because their victorian opponents got into top 2/4 without having to win a lot of away disadvantaged games, and so were a weaker list.

    Also means Brisbane and GC are/were really a lot worse list-wise than other teams when they are finishing last. It means they cant even win more than a couple of heavily home ground advantaged games.
    Good points Barry. Whenever one picks an argument with a Victorian based team's supporter, they always underplay the substantial advantage of playing a number of their 'away' games either at their home ground, or one just a few minutes down the road. Its a hard one to unpick, but I like the way you have presented it here.
    "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

  2. #38
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    2,390
    Maybe ask a Richmond or Hawthorn fan how they'd feel about the Swans playing 14 to 16 home & away games a year at the SCG,
    a few more at Spotless and all of our six grand finals since 1996 at the SCG as well.
    Last edited by KTigers; 21st November 2018 at 12:42 PM.

  3. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by mcs View Post
    Sadly the NGA's have much of the shonky deals feel about them - its zoning by stealth. At least it is limited to certain players so can't be a complete reintroduction of zoning by stealth, but there are already multiple examples of where players with already very well established pathways to AFL footy are being hoovered up by clubs under the NGA, claimed as their own - even where the clubs have had to do practically nothing to develop the talent.
    I pointed this out on here when the NGA’s were first introduced. Every single player that will be taken by a Victorian club had a pathway and was already in the system, from Quaynor from Collingwood to Bedford from Melbourne.

    Back on topic though. The biggest fall down for me is how much tickets are available to MCC members. It’s way way to much. A reduction in MCC member access to the GF and more tickets for competing clubs would have seen this new contract more acceptable to supporters.

    Anyone that lives outside Victoria would find the MCC membership not worth having.

    For example if your a Port Adelaide supporter and you wanted to gain access to a GF ticket via your MCC membership to every GF they have played in it would have cost you $12,000+ over the AFL lifetime of the club. Just not worth it plain simple. $12,000+ for a ground that you hardly get to play on in the H&A season, cheaper to obtain a ticket via the club, access to GF tickets that basically has cost you $6,000 a ticket and access to cricket games that you can see by not leaving Adelaide.

    It’s a membership set up basically for Victorian residents only.

    Reduce the MCC access n they would have found that the new contract would have been a lot more acceptable to non Vic supporters.

    Reduce it by atleast half. If competing clubs don’t use up the tickets then pass them back to the MCC.

    The AFL could have held out longer n recieved a lot better outcome as the contract got closer to finishing. Instead they got sold for a few magic beans.

  4. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by KTigers View Post
    Maybe ask a Richmond or Hawthorn fan how they'd feel about the Swans playing 14 to 16 home & away games a year at the SCG,
    a few more at Spotless and all of our six grand finals since 1996 at the SCG as well.
    This issue could have been fixed in the contract negotiations as the biggest difference between the stadiums is the dimensions.

    The games administrators have no foresight but if they had realised years ago that this issue would raise its head they would have made Marvel stadium the same dimensions as the MCG or negotiated to have the MCG dimensions closer to Marvel dimensions as possible.

    This way you reduce one of the issues in regards to GF day at the MCG by having non Vic clubs play on grounds more that have more similarities with where the GF is played. I’ve always believed that this is one of the reasons Brisbane were so good at the MCG during their years of success in the early 2000’s.

    Sadly the administrators are from a bygone era and thought it would have been “cool” to have have massively different dimensions like the good old days from ground to ground.

    IMO this is what has stifled the games growth in the northern states. Bad administrators that have no inclination of forward planning.

  5. #41
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Close to the old Lake Oval
    Posts
    3,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Boddo View Post
    This issue could have been fixed in the contract negotiations as the biggest difference between the stadiums is the dimensions.

    The games administrators have no foresight but if they had realised years ago that this issue would raise its head they would have made Marvel stadium the same dimensions as the MCG or negotiated to have the MCG dimensions closer to Marvel dimensions as possible.

    This way you reduce one of the issues in regards to GF day at the MCG by having non Vic clubs play on grounds more that have more similarities with where the GF is played. I’ve always believed that this is one of the reasons Brisbane were so good at the MCG during their years of success in the early 2000’s.

    Sadly the administrators are from a bygone era and thought it would have been “cool” to have have massively different dimensions like the good old days from ground to ground.

    IMO this is what has stifled the games growth in the northern states. Bad administrators that have no inclination of forward planning.

    You make very good points here in relation to ground dimensions, but home ground advantage is also about atmosphere and psychology. For example, the 2017 GF is a vastly different game if played in Adelaide.

  6. #42
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    2,390
    It's mind boggling that the AFL signed a 40 year deal to play the GF at the MCG in the first place. 40 years !
    Was there a competing offer from the A League to use the ground on a Saturday late in September in the mid 2050s?
    Was Michael Gudinski thinking Marvel Stadium wouldn't be big enough for the then 66 year old Ed Sheeran to play his "farewell"
    series of outdoor shows in 2057, and the AFL thought they better tie up the venue till then.
    Are no new stadiums going to be built in Australia in the next 40 years? Even though the countries population is mooted
    to be north of 60 million by then.
    Nope, none of the above. The 40 year deal just shows what the AFL really thinks about a national competition.
    Last edited by KTigers; 21st November 2018 at 02:31 PM.

  7. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Blood Fever View Post
    You make very good points here in relation to ground dimensions, but home ground advantage is also about atmosphere and psychology. For example, the 2017 GF is a vastly different game if played in Adelaide.
    I fully agree it’s not just ground dimensions. It’s one part.

    As I pointed out in another post in regards to crowd make up the GF would always have more supporters from Victoria due to the vast majority of MCC members being from Victoria due to it not being worth while have an MCC membership if your from outside Victoria. That’s part of the atmosphere.

    You add these 2 together n you can see how much of a massive advantage it is for Victorian clubs playing in the GF at the MCG.

    The point I was making is that if the administrators wanted a truly fair GF they would have considered these things plus more and tried to negotiated these into a new contract with the MCC.

    Instead they grabbed the magic beans n ran.

    Do people really think in twenty years time we’ll look back at the contract signing n go “wow what a deal”. No they’ll laugh n think we were all sold a lemon.

    The MCC made out like bandits.


    Yes I agree Adelaide would have destroyed Richmond. Would have been over very very early. Ala Geelong thrashing Port in ‘07. Richmond are the most pathetic premiers behind The Bulldogs imo.
    Last edited by Boddo; 21st November 2018 at 03:34 PM.

  8. #44
    Carpe Noctem CureTheSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxfield, Victoria
    Posts
    5,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KTigers View Post
    It's mind boggling that the AFL signed a 40 year deal to play the GF at the MCG in the first place. 40 years !
    Was there a competing offer from the A League to use the ground on a Saturday late in September in the mid 2050s?
    Was Michael Gudinski thinking Marvel Stadium wouldn't be big enough for the then 66 year old Ed Sheeran to play his "farewell"
    series of outdoor shows in 2057, and the AFL thought they better tie up the venue till then.
    Are no new stadiums going to be built in Australia in the next 40 years? Even though the countries population is mooted
    to be north of 60 million by then.
    Nope, none of the above. The 40 year deal just shows what the AFL really thinks about a national competition.
    They are pretty fair points.
    Will possibly be a huge regret if the structure of the competition changes over that period.

    In 1978 (40 years ago) we had
    12 teams in the competition
    no interstate teams
    games played at local ground
    1 game per week at the MCG
    a night series
    attendance less than half what it is now, which is somewhat reflective of...
    138 games player compared to 207
    average player payments of 15% of the average wage
    TV rights were held between ch2 and ch7 at $600,000 per year

    Smacks of a very Victorian centric AFl, who are worried about future national developments and want to lock it in to Victoria for a long time.
    Fast forward 10 to 15 years and we'll likely be discussing the pros and cons of buying out of the 40 year contract with the MCG.
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

  9. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by CureTheSane View Post
    They are pretty fair points.
    Will possibly be a huge regret if the structure of the competition changes over that period.

    In 1978 (40 years ago) we had
    12 teams in the competition
    no interstate teams
    games played at local ground
    1 game per week at the MCG
    a night series
    attendance less than half what it is now, which is somewhat reflective of...
    138 games player compared to 207
    average player payments of 15% of the average wage
    TV rights were held between ch2 and ch7 at $600,000 per year

    Smacks of a very Victorian centric AFl, who are worried about future national developments and want to lock it in to Victoria for a long time.
    Fast forward 10 to 15 years and we'll likely be discussing the pros and cons of buying out of the 40 year contract with the MCG.
    Neat post, CTS. Do you carry all that data at your finger tips?!

  10. #46
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    2,390
    Quote Originally Posted by CureTheSane View Post
    They are pretty fair points.
    Will possibly be a huge regret if the structure of the competition changes over that period.

    In 1978 (40 years ago) we had
    12 teams in the competition
    no interstate teams
    games played at local ground
    1 game per week at the MCG
    a night series
    attendance less than half what it is now, which is somewhat reflective of...
    138 games player compared to 207
    average player payments of 15% of the average wage
    TV rights were held between ch2 and ch7 at $600,000 per year

    Smacks of a very Victorian centric AFl, who are worried about future national developments and want to lock it in to Victoria for a long time.
    Fast forward 10 to 15 years and we'll likely be discussing the pros and cons of buying out of the 40 year contract with the MCG.
    My favourite is the argument that the MCG is the only stadium "big enough" to hold the GF (for 40 years). You only have
    to look at the list of stadiums used to host AFL games that are now no longer with us, or not being used for games to see just how fleeting
    the stadium business can be. Waverley, AAMI, Subiaco, ANZ, a litany of Melbourne suburban grounds, wherever the Bears used to play.
    These places come and go.
    There will be new stadiums built and knocked down between now and 2057. Sure the SCG, Adelaide Oval, Gabba & MCG will probably still
    be around then, but I'll be very surprised if any of the others are still around in 40 years. People seem to forget the capacity of ANZ during
    the 2000 Olympics was 130,000. The extra stands holding 55,000 seats were for an event that ran for two weeks. Then they pulled them down.
    As I said, it's a very fleeting business, the stadium game. So the "big enough" argument is ridiculous, and even more so when you consider
    what the population of Australia is likely to be in 40 years.

  11. #47
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Close to the old Lake Oval
    Posts
    3,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Boddo View Post
    I fully agree it’s not just ground dimensions. It’s one part.

    As I pointed out in another post in regards to crowd make up the GF would always have more supporters from Victoria due to the vast majority of MCC members being from Victoria due to it not being worth while have an MCC membership if your from outside Victoria. That’s part of the atmosphere.

    You add these 2 together n you can see how much of a massive advantage it is for Victorian clubs playing in the GF at the MCG.

    The point I was making is that if the administrators wanted a truly fair GF they would have considered these things plus more and tried to negotiated these into a new contract with the MCC.

    Instead they grabbed the magic beans n ran.

    Do people really think in twenty years time we’ll look back at the contract signing n go “wow what a deal”. No they’ll laugh n think we were all sold a lemon.

    The MCC made out like bandits.


    Yes I agree Adelaide would have destroyed Richmond. Would have been over very very early. Ala Geelong thrashing Port in ‘07. Richmond are the most pathetic premiers behind The Bulldogs imo.
    Spot on. As I've posted ad nauseum: embarrassment of a national competition, to be ridiculed for the next forty years. Don't be surprised if another premier extends it beyond 2057, ridiculous as it would seem. Never under estimate Melbourne footy community's insularity and delusion.

  12. #48
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by CureTheSane View Post
    Category: | Herald Sun

    Actually like the idea.
    Also have been a long term proponent of expanding the whole finals system.
    Hate that you play 22 rounds to end with 8 teams, lose 2 instantly, and then more each week.
    Can't read the article as you have to subscribe to News Corp and I'm not willing to give Murdoch even one dollar of my money. s there a similar article in the Age/SMH?

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO